BBC: Unfair Pay

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that Answer to an Urgent Question given in another place. I must say, as I take part in this exercise for the first time, that I had expected in an Urgent Question to hear a note of urgency. While I sense a little self-congratulation about measures that have been brought in and reforms that have been introduced, as regards the BBC I do not sense that deep desire to achieve objectives that are in line with public expectations at large, deeply held and urgently sought. Of course, the measures that are mentioned must continue, but 2020 seems a long way away. We understand that the BBC must look after its own internal affairs, but can the Government assure us that, with some urgency, all appropriate measures will be applied to encourage, goad and pressurise it to come forward with a solution to these questions, so that the beacon referred to can serve as a benchmark against which to measure progress in other sectors of our public life?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I stress that the Government absolutely support urgent action on this. Of course, it was this Government who brought in the requirement for the BBC to publish salaries over £150,000, which is one of the reasons why we are talking about this issue today. The Statement makes it quite clear that the Government expect the BBC to act in accordance with what we have expected it to do as regards the gender pay gap. We understand that when you have a deep-seated and probably long-established problem, it takes some time to deal with and it is a difficult management issue. But let us be under no illusions—the Government expect the director-general and the new unitary board to deal with that. They are the people who have responsibility for that. We are pleased that the EHRC will look at this. For individuals, it has been illegal to pay people unequally because of their gender for over 40 years, and we expect all companies—not only the BBC but especially the BBC, which is a public institution —to obey the law.

Communications Act 2003 and the Digital Economy Act 2017 (Consequential Amendments to Primary Legislation) Regulations 2017

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has reminded us of our happy days during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill—now the Digital Economy Act. Of course, we all like to be reminded of our days in the salt mines. These regulations are straightforward and we welcome them. I certainly do not intend to raise again any issues relating to the Electronic Communications Code. Certainly, I would not want to provoke another speech from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester; that would be very unwise.

However, I will make a couple of comments relating to the implementation of the code. As I understand it, Ofcom is issuing a code of practice on top of that. There is some concern that although the direction of travel of the ECC was very clear, the code of practice is in a sense bringing back a slight bias in favour of the landowners. That is a concern of some commentators. One says:

“While the consultation around the code of practice is to be welcomed, if implemented in its current form, the code of practice is in danger of swinging the pendulum back too far in favour of landowners who will be able to challenge operators at every stage”.


I know that the Government were very keen to get the balance right. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

The Minister may want to write to me about this, but this is a useful opportunity to ask about the direction of government policy in terms of EU regulatory reforms—if we can bear it. It looks like there are plans from Brussels for a new Electronic Communications Code which includes e-privacy regulation. Obviously, before we exit—if we exit—it will continue to be important to keep the digital single market and the single telecoms market in place. The question arises: will there be time? Will the new Electronic Communications Code, however it is brought in—whether by directive or regulation, I am not quite sure—happen? Will it fall outside? Will it be after 29 March? Will it fall during a transition period? I suspect there are many in the telecoms field and the general area of technology infrastructure who will be extremely interested in the answer to that.

Those are the two areas on which I would very much like to have an answer from the Minister, either now or at some stage in the future.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not have very much to add. The allusion to happy days in the past, which I missed, unfortunately—

[Lord Clement-Jones]

Fortunately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

From the noble Lord’s tone of voice, I honestly thought that it was a sunnier experience than that. Between that and a hypothetical happy future, when other things may or may not happen, I will stick to what is in front of us.

It all seems logical to me. I guess the simplicity of the proposals led to this being referred to me, with my simple mind. I understand perfectly that with the developments in electronic communications we have to have methods appropriate for handling the expansions of systems across the land. I note that the speed and effectiveness of dispute resolution becomes a possible consequence of decisions taken. The balance to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred is indeed mentioned in these documents and is being sought. I am in no position to judge whether the view expressed that suggested movement back towards landowners is true, but I am sure the Minister will answer that question.

There is a consultation. I note that there is to be no impact assessment because there is no impact, it seems. It is nice to have read that at least six times in these papers. I commend all those who have gone through all the legislation, both past legislation in general and localised legislation from across the land. It is a job for somebody and I pay tribute to the nameless people who have done this trawl. It even goes into the county of my birth—Dyfed in south Wales—where I was rather disturbed to find that “statutory undertakers” are now to be called “operators”. In my life’s work as a Methodist minister, I had rather a lot to do with statutory undertakers and I am sorry that they have been defined out of existence.

There is a logic running through this. It is simplicity itself. It tidies up what is in front of us. I have no hesitation in supporting these measures.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful for both noble Lords’ comments. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the code of practice, it is not yet published. Extensive consultation was carried out. It is a bit difficult to speculate on its content, but it is important to remember that the code of practice is not binding and cannot change the balance that the law delivers. We spent some time considering that balance. It is certainly true that one of the points of the code was that it should enable operators to do things that were taking too long. There is certainly no intention to change that balance. We absolutely understand the need for operators to access land more easily and more speedily, but preferably on a consensual basis. That was the whole object. These regulations are to do with the occasions, which we hope will not be very often, where agreement cannot be reached, so we can go to a tribunal that has expert surveyors and people like that on it, rather than the county court, which is not expert. I say to the noble Lord that we have no intention and there was no desire to change the balance between landowners and operators. We will have to see what the code of practice says. It is not binding, but if need be we can talk to him when it comes out. We expect to commence the code in December. Ofcom has assured us that the code will come out before it comes into force.

We do not know the timings for the European ECC. If it is acceptable to the Committee I will look at some of the questions the noble Lord asked and do some research into them. We might not know the answers. I do not have them to hand, but if we do know I will come back to the noble Lord.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, was able to come in at the end of this long process. He had one of the more happy experiences. I am very grateful to him. With that, I beg to move.

Online Gambling

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, the weight of opinion from all round the Chamber has fallen equally in one direction—the Minister’s head. I look forward to his handling of the responses. The contributions have been the best possible vindication of the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in bringing this matter to our attention. We do not have to say thank you; the gratitude has been expressed in the way that people have rallied round him and supported the cause. That makes it incumbent on us to do something with the unanimity expressed. I hope that a moral force will have been let loose that will yield its own results in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, and some other noble Lord, who have contributed to this important debate are veterans in a cause which is too often laughed off by people who consider those who raise these concerns to be cranks, do-gooders or zealots. In case noble Lords think that I am exaggerating, I should tell them that after my contribution to the previous debate on gambling, which was only three or four weeks ago, I had some such comments from other Members of the House. Therefore, I hope that they read the record of this debate and realise that I am in such good and worthy company that I can be spared any of those epithets.

In the New Testament there is a story about a woman who goes on knocking at the door of a judge in her demand for justice until, finally, though grudgingly, worn out by her persistence, he lets her in and hears her case. Taking that as our example, it would be apposite to think of these proceedings therefore as the parable of the importunate noble Lord, Lord Browne. I hope that the knocking on the door that he continues to do will yield its results and allow us to consider these matters that affect the moral fibre of the country in which we live.

It is only a short time since we debated fixed-odds betting terminals. Most speakers in that debate were mystified by the news that the Government were about to conduct a consultation to reach a decision about the amount of money that could be staked on those machines. We felt that any number of consultations had taken place in the fairly recent past and failed to understand the particular nature of this one. The problem is so urgent that one consultation after another hardly seems the best methodology. A figure between £2 and £50 has been mentioned more than once, and those who mentioned it expressed the hope that £2 would be nearer the point at which judgment sits than the £50 at the other end of the spectrum. I begin my remarks by asking the Minister and the Government whether any progress is being made with this consultation and whether any clarity is beginning to emerge, and when they feel they will be able to announce the outcomes of the consultation as well as the level set for those stakes.

That is the past, but I begin there for a reason. In March 2014, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, was persuaded to withdraw his amendment to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill with an assurance that the Government would bring forward non-statutory proposals for a multi-operator self-exclusion scheme. We have heard about that from various noble Lords this afternoon. An undertaking was given that it would appear before the end of this year, although that was presented as an ultimate delay. Yet those goalposts too have now been shifted again and the summer of next year is now being spoken of. Can the Minister throw some light on this? If it is true, can he tell us whether we can have greater confidence in the latest projected date than in previous ones, and why exactly it is taking so long? Can the proposal be put on a statutory basis when it eventually comes our way?

The online self-exclusion proposal is not by any means a solution to the problem facing us, and we should not kid ourselves that it is. At the very least, we should find a way to enable someone who wishes to end their online gambling to have a one-stop route to cutting out all online sites, whether they are operating under a Gambling Commission licence or not. Some 200 such sites are quoted as having a licence, and an innumerable swarm lie beyond that. Various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Foster, have asked precisely for that. Even if we get that assurance or that provision, of course it is nothing like enough. I have worked in the field of addiction long enough to know that the hardest thing of all for an addict of any kind is to be sufficiently self-motivated to take such an action in the first place. The very nature of addictive behaviour is the erosion of self-determination, where one’s will is dulled and overwhelmed by habit and where realism gives way to fantasy. It is a big ask to expect such people to opt for even a well-constructed self-exclusion scheme. It is like asking an alcoholic to give up drinking or asking someone suffering from depression to pull their socks up. The work I did for 17 years with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in establishing Addiction Today set its sights on the 12-step method—which again, is reviled by some but a proven rescue line for others—because it is a social remedy: an attempt with others to solve a problem. I am personally committed to that method myself.

We are told—we have heard the figure many times—that there are 430,000 problem gamblers, with five times that figure at risk of falling into the same category. Their habits are difficult to detect. Many of them are children. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made her passionate case for children. The plea is made to protect children from being groomed—why do we not use that word?—for the gambling industry with games that feature the likes of Peter Pan and Sherlock Holmes, which have also been referred to.

The Minister is only too aware of recent debates on how best to protect children from the dangers of the internet. The Data Protection Bill is going through this House at this very moment and these matters are being discussed in great depth. I know that the Minister will certainly be smacking his lips at the prospect of debating the amendment to that Bill in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, on the question of child-friendly design in the use of the internet—a concept that started to emerge in services where kids spent a considerable amount of time on social media and there was concern that they would be exposed. Initially, that concern was primarily about grooming for sexual exploitation, but it became more about exposure to all kinds of harms and criminality. Can we promise ourselves to look at proposals to protect children in the area of gambling by looking to the provisions that we seek to make to protect children from the harm imposed on them by the internet in more general terms? The wisdom there might be helpful here. We could also look at the proposals relating to age verification—that, too, has been mentioned in this debate—with a view to bringing them into play to help us deal with children at risk from gambling.

It is a fact universally acknowledged that, by its very nature, gambling will produce victims. Experts differ on the numbers but, as already mentioned, we are speaking here of hundreds of thousands. Eventually, treatment regimes will be needed to help with their mental and physical health—that is, they will be a charge on our health and social care services. In acknowledging this, will the Government consider imposing a levy on the gambling industry to meet these costs—a proposal made by many in this debate? The 0.1% contribution from the gambling industry’s £13.8 billion is derisory. A statutory levy—I was intrigued to hear about the horses and greyhounds—could produce much more money for GambleAware and related bodies to do their work and even generate finance that could be hypothecated, perhaps as a direct contribution to NHS budgets. Do the Government agree with reasoning of this kind, and would they be led to consider such a levy? If not, why not?

I could go on—there is much to say. Noble Lords have raised a number of points. They have made us all aware that, far from being cranks, do-gooders or zealots, they care deeply about the well-being of our citizens and the communities they live in. I look forward to hearing a recognition of this concern and a serious engagement with the issues raised in this most welcome debate when the Minister makes his reply.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely support my noble friend’s amendment. We have got ourselves into a complete mess in this country on insurance, and motor insurance is a pretty good example. Premiums in this country are about double what they should be. They are the highest in Europe, above even Italy, because of a level of fraud that we encourage by our legislation and by the lack of action from successive Governments to do anything about it. We can see the size of the problem that this clause will generate, if unamended, by what has happened in motor insurance. It leaves an open door to an enormous number of claims management companies, of which 500 or so were seriously active the last time I looked. It is a really big, profitable industry, and it will push into a hole like this with no difficulty at all.

We took a bit of action a while ago on whiplash injuries. Fine, whiplash injuries are down, but rocketing upwards now is, “Oh, I had this crash and now I get a buzzing in my ears”. It is wonderful—a disease which has suddenly appeared from nowhere because the claims management companies need an opportunity to push in here. We must realise what is happening. I hope we will get around to dealing with the general problem at some stage, but to open another door to these people is just foolish.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his eloquent disquisition, which made me much more aware of the issues than I was before. I have no problem in aligning myself with the two points of view that have just been expressed. I had come to the conclusion partly myself, but to be told that the wording is not in the equivalent article in the European GDPR just adds to my simple conclusion that the words “other adverse effects” add precisely nothing but open a potential cave of dark possibilities. The rain of the noble Lord’s eloquence has found a crack in my roof, and I am very happy to align myself with his remarks.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I also share the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Hunt, based on my experience, both in government and in a number of different businesses. We have the experience not only of the motor sector, which has been talked about, but obviously of PPI, where there was compensation that needed to be paid, but the whole business took years and generated not only claims management companies but also nuisance calls and lots of other harms. This is an area that one has to be very careful about, and I support looking at the drafting carefully to see what can be done, and at my noble friend’s idea of trying to estimate the economic impact—the costs—in terms of those affected. That would help one to come to a sensible conclusion on what is appropriate in this important Bill.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an extraordinary list of amendments that address things in great detail; they are all about tidying up and working things out as we go along. Since that is what we try to do as often as we can, it is nice to see the effort that has been made and hours that have been spent. Much of it is logical and needs no further discussion, but we have in respect of amendments in the range of Amendment 171, and so on, a bit of a worry about the notion that personal data is processed for special purposes—journalism, academic, artistic or literary purposes—and that there are exemptions in place so that the commissioner must first determine whether processing is for a special purpose before taking further enforcement action.

We have always understood that the provisions at this point are only asking in this Bill to replicate the conditions obtaining in such cases in the 1998 legislation. This particular detail makes it seem as if that might not be the case, because we have submissions from various people in the media to suggest that, while they understand the regulations, to step in before the material is put together to make this determination feels a bit threatening. Can the Minister guarantee that the provisions in this Bill are identical with those in the 1998 Act?

There is not an adequate mention, again, according to people in the field, of the relation of photography and photojournalism to written journalism. Could that be thought about, too? If everything is the same, we have no further questions but, if not, could the Minister tell us exactly what the differences are and whether she can write to us so that we may know what they are?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

As the noble Lord said, this particular group of amendments is where personal data is processed for special purposes for journalism, academic, artistic or literary purposes. There are certain exemptions in place, so the commissioner must first determine whether processing is for special purposes before taking further enforcement action. A special purposes determination can be appealed to a court, not a tribunal; these amendments correct the Bill as only a court, not tribunals, are relevant. They also make technical corrections to ensure compatibility with Scots law. The definition of special purposes proceedings is also widened slightly so that special purposes can be asserted in a wider range of situations.

I think that I have inspiration coming from my right hand side. The noble Lord mentioned photojournalism, which is included in the data—I think that that is what he meant.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

I sympathise with the Minister, who sought inspiration from behind, because it is what I do all the time. Those who have expressed anxiety to us are worried that pressure will be put on them as programme makers and investigative journalists prior to publication and issuing their material in edited form, whereas currently they are subject to the regulation once that material has been put together. That is the area where anxieties have been expressed, and we need some reassurance on that point.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

The best thing that I can do is to have a look and get back to the noble Lord on those points, if that is okay.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments, in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, may not be the most difficult or most significant that we will come to, but they are important and they deal with an issue brought to us by the Bar Council. I am aware that members of the Bar Council met officials and I believe that some of the matters throughout the Bill that they discussed were left with officials to consider—and, no doubt, with the Bar Council as well. I am not aware that this matter has been settled. The amendment would remove the paragraph from Part 3 of this schedule and put it in Part 2 and would extend the exemption recognising practicalities. Briefly, the issue is the term “legal claims”.

The Bar Council makes the point that this phrase does not adequately describe all the work that lawyers and all parts of the profession undertake on behalf of their clients. There is a risk, therefore, that legal professionals will not be able to process special categories of personal data when undertaking legal advice relating to prosecutions, defences to prosecutions and criminal appeals, family and child protection proceedings and so on, or—noble Lords may think that this should not come within this category—legal advice relating to tax or a proposed transaction. The Bar Council is rightly concerned, of course, to ensure that legal professionals can process such data when undertaking activity which is squarely within the scope of its normal work but beyond what might be described by the narrow term, “legal claims”. The amendment includes wording which is about to be put to the Committee in the form of government amendments which have already been debated and brings the matter of the legal activity listed in the new clause and the government amendments into Part 2 of Schedule 1. I beg to move.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, if the House will indulge me, having heard someone who described herself earlier as a foot soldier in her army of volunteers, I can now identify her as a beaver in the battalion of dam building. It seems that by broadening all that falls under the term, “legal claims”, and, of course, on the advice of the Bar Council, some common sense is being alluded to here and therefore we have no hesitation in joining our forces to those we have heard so ably expressed.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making her debut in the Committee stage and to the noble Lord for his comments. By way of background, because I find it quite complicated, it is worth reminding ourselves that article 9 of the GDPR provides processing conditions for special categories of data. In particular, the processing necessary for,

“the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims”,

is permitted by article 9(2)(f). It is directly applicable and does not allow any discretion to derogate from it in any way. Article 10 of the GDPR, which relates to criminal convictions and offences data, takes a different approach. It requires member states to set out in their law conditions relating to the processing of said criminal convictions and offences data in order to enable many organisations to process it. Paragraph 26 of Schedule 1 therefore seeks to maintain the status quo by replicating in relation to criminal convictions data the processing condition for the special categories of personal data contained in article 9(2)(f).

Government Amendment 65, referred to by the noble Baroness, responds to a request we have had from stakeholders to anglicise the language currently used in that paragraph. The Government strongly agree about the importance of ensuring that data protection law does not accidentally undermine the proper conduct of legal proceedings, which is why we have made this provision. We submit that Amendments 63A and 64A are unnecessary. They are predicated on the false premise that government Amendment 65 in some way changes the scope of paragraph 26. It does not, it simply anglicises it. However, even if different wording were to be used in Amendment 63A to that used in Amendment 65, we are certain that the Commission would take a dim view of member states attempting to use article 9(2)(g), the substantial public interest processing condition, to expand article 9(2)(f) in the way that Amendment 63A proposes. In the light of that explanation, I would be grateful if in this case the noble Baroness would withdraw her amendment.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 13th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, we have amendments in this group. Amendment 79A concerns exemptions from GDPR and adaptations and restrictions based on various articles. As we begin to tighten up our understanding and clarify the range of application of these exemptions as the Bill goes through this House, we have talked to Liberty about the rights of individuals under this part of the Bill. Amendment 79A seeks to remove the exemption from data subjects’ right to restrict the processing of their data—for example, in cases where data accuracy is contested, the processing is unlawful or the data is required for the exercise of a legal claim in relation to a variety of broad purposes including the prevention and detection of crime, tax purposes, risk assessment systems, including in the administering of housing benefit, and the maintenance of effective immigration control.

Amendment 79B is a similar and parallel amendment to remove the exemption from data subjects’ right to object to data processing where there is an absence of compelling legitimate grounds, again in relation to the same range of activities and purposes. Amendment 83B is a probing amendment by which we seek to delete a paragraph which outlines where the GDPR does not apply to personal data processed for the purposes of functions designed to protect the public. Instanced against this are, for example,

“financial loss due to dishonesty … financial loss due to the conduct of discharged or undischarged bankrupts”,

and so on.

A set of amendments then come under Part 3 of this schedule on the protection of the rights of others. Amendment 86A deletes conditions under which a controller can determine whether it is reasonable to disclose information without consent. Amendment 86B probes provisions which state that information can be disclosed without consent where,

“the health data test is met … the social work data test is met, or … the education data test”.

When we get into some of these it seems, frankly, that they are rather loosely drafted and not immediately clear. Perhaps we could work harder to bring these things to a pitch where they are common sense and clear to normally intelligent people—although after the presentation from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I do not reach that bar; I am doing my best. Amendment 86C deletes the paragraph which outlines conditions by which the GDPR does not apply,

“to personal data processed for the purposes of or in connection with a corporate finance service provided by a relevant person”.

Even reading the wording of an amendment which we have put some thought into is complicated, and these amendments refer to clauses in the Bill that are even more complicated. Since these affect the rights of individuals, the law should be written with some clarity and lucidity to make it more accessible.

Amendment 86D deletes a paragraph which states that the GDPR provisions do not apply where data is processed for,

“management forecasting or management planning in relation to a business or other activity”.

I have to spit the word “data” out of my mouth when it is used with a singular verb. All my education taught me that it should not be.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, it falls to me to speak to a sequence of amendments from Amendment 35 to Amendment 68. Whereas we have had complicated issues before us in previous discussions on the Bill, most of these are probing and of a much simpler substance. I will proceed with them as best I may.

Amendment 35 is to paragraph 5(1), which states that a condition for substantial public interest is met only when the processing is carried out by the controller, who has,

“an appropriate policy document in place”.

The amendment we propose seems sensible and simple, which is that the policy document should be,

“made available to the data subject without charge”.

We repeat that in Amendment 68 to Part 4 of Schedule 1, where there is discussion of an “appropriate” document.

Amendment 37 probes the protected characteristics of the Equality Act. Whereas in the Bill just a few are mentioned, our amendment asks why all those included in the Equality Act are not in that list. In the amendment we can see the proposed extra categories that would be placed there to complete that list. Once again it seems sensible, having started on that track, to complete that process.

We come next to preventing or detecting unlawful acts. Amendment 38 asks about “a serious” test. We have had conversations with Reuters and a number of amendments are consequent on some of the observations we made in that conversation. Thus with Amendment 39 we would ask the information commissioning officer to clarify that processing must be carried out without the consent of a data subject where,

“a data subject is unlikely to give consent”,

for example to frustrate prevention or detection, where it would involve disproportionate effort to achieve consent or where the nature of the processing means that withdrawal of consent would prejudice prevention or detection of unlawful acts. That probes the extent to which these matters might apply.

Amendment 40 is again a probing amendment on the question of dishonesty, under the heading:

“Protecting the public against dishonesty”.


Perhaps we need to work out how better to define dishonesty. We all know what telling a lie is, but in the days of fake news we can perhaps have different or varying views on this. Perhaps it needs to be tied down a bit more closely.

Amendment 41 refers to protecting members of the public. It is unclear in the schedule whether this extends to protecting businesses from doing business with other businesses that would cause them severe reputational harm because, for example, they engage in modern slavery, bribery or whatever. It might be good to frame the law so it is clear that it involves businesses and members of the public. To skip an amendment for the moment, that ties in with Amendment 44. Paragraph 12 does not expressly allow screening by private companies for the purpose of checking against non-UK terrorist financing or money-laundering laws. Nor does it allow screening to be undertaken to comply with widely recognised guidelines such as those promulgated by the Financial Action Task Force, in which the United Kingdom Government participate. It seems sensible to include that screening in the Bill. The amendment seeks to achieve that.

Amendment 43 is to paragraph 12, which says that the condition of expressing a public interest is met,

“if the processing is necessary for the purposes of making a disclosure in good faith”,

under sections of the Terrorism Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act. Again, it would be nice to tie some of that down with further clarification. That might help us all. Amendment 45 asks about counselling.

That is the rather interesting daisy chain of amendments it falls to me to present. Since this is, for me, a maiden speech on a piece of legislation, nobody would expect it to be contentious, disputational or controversial. In that sense, I offer it for the consideration of the Committee.

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 45A in my name. I am advised my Amendment 64 is not in the right place, so I direct the Committee’s attention to Amendment 45A.

Last Monday there was considerable focus in our discussions on the vital need to ensure that legitimate research—especially medical research in the public interest based on the personal data of patients—was not impeded by the terms of this legislation by requiring re-consents that might well be unobtainable. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, spelled out the arguments with great cogency and I do not need to repeat them.

My amendment seeks to ensure that another category of medical activity is not prevented from continuing to give help. I refer to patient support groups. At Second Reading I spoke about Unique, a not-for-profit charity that enables research into, and offers support to, sufferers of rare chromosome disorders and their families. These disorders can and often do result in severe and even profound lifelong disability for which there is no cure.

Since I spoke, many other patient support organisations have been in touch with the same concerns. They support my amendment. They include Genetic Alliance, which comprises 190 organisations giving support to individuals with rare or incurable conditions, such as the Down’s Syndrome Association; the MPS Society, which supports individuals suffering from mucopolysaccharide disease; Alström Syndrome UK; Prader-Willi Syndrome Association; the MND Association for motor neurone disease; Action Duchenne, which supports those suffering from muscular dystrophy; Save Babies Through Screening Foundation, which focuses on infants with Krabbe disease; the Lily Foundation, which supports those with mitochondrial disease; the PCD Family Support Group, for primary ciliary dyskinesia; UKPIPS, Primary Immune-deficiency Patient Support; SMA Support for spinal muscular atrophy; Vasculitis UK; and Annabelle’s Challenge.

All these groups support the amendment I tabled. I could go on; there are others. I have listed them because I do not want it thought that there is in my amendment any suggestion of special pleading for a very small number of organisations. On the contrary, patient support groups are numerous and do unsung but irreplaceable work among individuals and families for whom life can be very hard.

What is the problem with the Bill? Schedule 1 lists a number of circumstances in which the special category of sensitive personal data can be processed without explicit consent for reasons of public interest. But patient support groups do not fall into the categories of organisations that can avail them themselves of this exemption, nor do the purposes for which they collect personal data qualify. This means that the Bill will oblige patient support groups which collect health information from their members either to re-contact everyone from their database to get renewed explicit consent, or to destroy or anonymise any data not re-consented.

On the face of it, this may seem perfectly reasonable, but it takes no account of the real-life situation of the individuals and their families which the patient support groups help. I explained at Second Reading how in reality carers, who may be the other side of the world, may not respond to communications but then, possibly years later, communicate to ask for help or get in touch to help each other. It is certainly wasteful and gratuitously harmful to require such data to be destroyed when it is the very basis on which these groups can offer relevant support. In the case of Unique, experience suggests that up to 50% of existing data would need to be destroyed, having been accumulated over 30 years, and thus lost for current and future research and sufferers. I am sure this cannot be the intended outcome of the Bill.

Anonymisation, which in some circumstances might be an acceptable answer, does not provide a solution in the case of support groups. Matching disease types enables support groups to give informed prognoses to the families of sufferers and to their clinicians, who individually may not have met such a rare condition before. They help with practical advice and put sufferers and their families in touch with each other, thus improving their prospects and relieving distress and loneliness. But to do this, they need access to names and addresses and special-category data of their members, because anonymous data are of absolutely no use in this context.

Medical research would also be the loser as the Bill stands. To take one example, the MND Association, the motor neurone support group, has more than 3,000 blood samples in its collection, cell lines and accompanying clinical information. This database has been and is used in a variety of research projects to look at potential causative genes. Samples will also be used to screen potential drugs. To all this, the personal data of the individuals concerned is essential and it is not guaranteed that they will always be capable of being re-contacted.

In this context, perhaps I may quote from a statement by Public Health England in support of the work of patient support groups:

“We are clear that patient registries, particularly for individuals with less common conditions, are one of the most valuable sources for the care, research and support of patients and their families. In many cases they are the only source of information on some disorders. Some collections stretch back many years. This historical record is essential for longitudinal studies and long term follow up … These searches can only be performed on well curated, identifiable data as people change their names and locations”.


Public Health England goes on to say that the question is about the adequacy of the consent obtained in the first place and whether it meets the enhanced rights of data subjects under the GDPR. Absolutely—there is no argument that the consent at the outset needs to be of a good standard so that subsequent use of personal data can be validly based on it.

My amendment would confine the special provision that I am proposing to members of organisations for specific purposes which I would hope we could all agree lie in the public interest. It would not open the floodgates to a collection of streams of unconsented personal data for undefined purposes. I therefore hope that the Government can agree to my amendment.

Review of Gaming Machines

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, while I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that Statement, I confess it leaves me perplexed. The recent review and other sources have yielded facts enough: 430,000 gamblers with an addiction, up by a third in three years; a further 2 million problem gamblers at risk of developing an addiction; £1.8 billion lost on these machines each year, an increase of 79% in the last eight years; and a gambling industry whose yield, or the amounts it wins in bets, has increased to £13.8 billion from £8.36 billion in 2009, having spent a mere £10 million towards a voluntary levy last year on education and treatment. Some 450,000 children gamble at least once a week.

My question is simple: granted that we are armed already with factual and proven information, what is to be gained by having this consultation? Will the Government let us know clearly what they are probing for by holding this further consultation, and can they assure me that, with the grass-cutting season nearly over, it is not an exercise for lobbing things into the long grass?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, that is not an unexpected question. I can assure the noble Lord that we are not putting this into the long grass. He is absolutely right that there was a six-week evidence-gathering session. The evidence gathered has convinced us of the need to take action and reduce the maximum FOBT stakes. However, it is a complex issue and not about stakes alone. We are therefore publishing today a package of measures to address the concerns. We must strike the right balance between the socially responsible growth of the industry and the protection of consumers and the communities they live in. Our position is that the maximum stake should be between £50 and £2. We are consulting on that specific issue. This has to be done with due process to avoid any further problems which may come in the future with doing it in too rushed a manner.

Channel 4: Privatisation (Communications Committee Report)

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be here. I am delighted to be speaking to a report introduced so wonderfully by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to whom tribute has been paid from many quarters for the clarity with which he put his view and for the intelligence with which he anticipated so many of the points that I want to make. I was delighted to hear the impassioned speech by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which swept us off our feet. He told us of his watching habits at the age of 11. It was a long list. My only disappointment was that it did not highlight a programme on which I appeared more than once: “The Big Breakfast”. I shall never forget the experience of sitting on the studio couch being interviewed by two puppets called Zig and Zag. Some of the committee work in this House has made me aware of that experience and of some of its colour.

The future of Channel 4 must be a matter of concern for all of us. Since it was set up in 1982, it has become part of a brilliantly conceived ecosystem of free-to-air provision for the British public, and we ruin or harm or diminish it at our peril. I, too, regret that this report has taken so long to come to our attention on the Floor of the House. When I was reading it, I found it difficult to understand why the Government had set their heart on privatising Channel 4 at all. There were many financial, regulatory, commercial and professional voices mentioned in the report, even competitors in the field, and the Government’s position seemed so lonely among all the very different advice that was being given. The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned that an American might have bought Channel 4 if it had been for sale. We can imagine what such an American might have done with the remit which currently governs Channel 4 programming. It would not have been the same at all. It is not going to produce much money to do all those things, such as stimulate public debate, inspire change and nurture new and existing talent, which is truly radical.

I would add to the programming that has been mentioned the extraordinary film series, “The Promise” and “The State”, which Peter Kosminsky brought to our screens and which, very bravely, took us into the heart of complicated situations in a graphic way, as only the arts can succeed in doing. It was strange for me, a newcomer to this business, to read of the Government’s commitment to privatisation. Possible motives have been alluded to by noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. However, wiser heads prevailed and the project was abandoned. Privatisation went off the table, and we came to the question of nations and regions—and nobody, of course, can be against that.

We have had different advocates. My noble friend Lady Quin made an impassioned plea for the north-east. If I were less bound by my brief, I would go to town on the case for Wales. The barely disguised suggestion is that a significant part of the core business, if not all of it, should up sticks and move to another part of the country, although the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, have suggested more varied ways in which that might be achieved.

The Secretary of State announced the Government’s U-turn on privatisation from the heart of Media City in Manchester. We have heard about the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Best, received, and we have seen a copy of it. She made a big speech in Media City, in which she turned her attention towards regionalisation. She declared herself,

“unsympathetic towards those who recoil in horror at the very idea of media jobs being based outside the capital”.

Indeed, she offered Manchester as an example of what was being done for the industry by people who had shown themselves prepared to move out into other parts of the land.

We should be careful about facile comparisons. I happened to be working with the BBC in a peripheral way when, during the 1990s, some departments were being decanted from London to Manchester. I became aware of numbers of experienced staff who had roots, mortgages and children at school in London which they simply could not abandon. Others have mentioned the plight of such people. They are real human-need stories. There will always be a human cost to such a plan. It was the existence of already vibrant BBC activity in Manchester, together with the eventual presence of ITV, that allowed those relocated departments the possibility of achieving critical mass as the bold new venture was developed.

There is no similar place beckoning the Channel 4 operation. Indeed, Channel 4 has conducted its own consultation process, which has made it aware of the need to provide greater investment in programme commissioning that favours the nations and regions far more than at present. We can only hope that, when Alex Mahon comes into office as the chief executive officer, she will take those plans forward. It is worth pausing to rejoice at the fact that a woman is to be the chief executive officer, a first for a major broadcasting company in this country, and to talk about the fact that, while mention has been made of the fact that diversity on the board is less than it could be, there has been a terrific commitment to the question of diversity as far as it includes disabled people. You cannot win everything, but I should say that while Channel 4 has struggled with the question of diversity and there are things that it might have done better, there are things that we must rejoice at its having achieved.

There is no familiar place for Channel 4 to relocate to. In my view, everything would have to begin several steps back from what happened in Manchester. Nor should we forget that, at least in those days, the BBC did most of its work in-house. A lot more is put out now to independent companies—then it produced its own programmes. Channel 4, as many have said, does not work that way; it commissions its work from outside bodies. Are we aware that it sets up and employs 3,000 people across the nation and has spent £1.5 million on such programmes, a not inconsiderable amount? Just think of “Location, Location, Location”, whose production team is based in Glasgow and which films throughout the country, or “Hollyoaks”—why has no one mentioned that? It is Channel 4’s largest production and is rooted in the north-west, with 70% of its workforce drawn from the area. Then there is “Ackley Bridge”, a new school drama that is filmed and based in Halifax.

I suspect it would be interesting to look more closely not just at Channel 4 in this regard but at where terrestrial broadcasters as a whole currently commission their programmes, to ensure that independent producers in all areas of our regions and nations get the chance to tell their stories and broadcast their ideas about the world, each from their own perspective. This is not just a Channel 4 issue; ITV and the BBC, which are public service broadcasters too, should be asked, as well as Channel 4, to defend their commissioning policies. A key feature of our terrestrial television system is that it is a complex interrelated ecology where the channels compete on quality and diversity so that audiences receive the best service possible.

We damage Channel 4’s ability to maintain and develop its levels of performance at our peril. Since earlier I heard debates about implementation and transitional arrangements, I note that Channel 4 is awaiting the arrival of a new CEO, so perhaps this is the time to just wait a moment, consult and see how things turn out. Perhaps “Festina lente”—“Make haste slowly”—is the best advice that we could give ourselves.